(GHANA) A federal immigration judge said she could not intervene in recent deportation to Ghana cases, even as lawyers raised torture fears and pointed to missing due process steps. The ruling lands amid a wider fight over the Trump administration’s expanded use of third-country removals in 2025, the Supreme Court’s green light to keep flights going while cases proceed, and a fresh travel ban tied to countries’ cooperation on deportations.
On September 5, 2025, the United States 🇺🇸 deported 14 migrants from Alexandria, Louisiana to Ghana. Advocates say at least five people on that plane were from Nigeria and The Gambia and had immigration court orders blocking removal to their home countries. Within days, Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama publicly confirmed a bilateral agreement to accept deportees. That confirmation on September 10 sparked more legal filings and fresh questions about whether Ghana is being used as a holding point to bypass court rulings.
Policy context and legal backdrop
The Trump administration’s second term has adopted what officials describe as a maximal approach: mass removals and expanded third-country transfers to African nations, including Ghana, Rwanda, Eswatini, and South Sudan.
- In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy issued a preliminary injunction requiring written notice and a chance to make claims under the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) before any third-country removal.
- On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed Murphy’s order, allowing deportations to continue while litigation proceeds.
DHS officials argue enforcement is necessary and warn people with criminal histories may “end up in CECOT, Eswatini, South Sudan, or another third country.” Legal scholars and human rights groups counter that the policy risks violating the ban on refoulement—the international rule barring sending someone to a place where they face torture or persecution.
The policy shift sits alongside a new June 4, 2025 travel ban targeting 19 countries (with possible expansion to 36 more, mostly in Africa). The administration has linked entry limits to countries’ willingness to accept deported nationals. Analysts warn this ties immigration enforcement to diplomatic leverage and can disrupt family reunification, labor markets, and diaspora ties.
Rapid deportations and immediate consequences
The September 5 flight and the September 10 Ghana confirmation triggered heightened legal activity and concern:
- Advocates say several people on the flight had active court orders blocking removal to their home countries.
- Ghana’s public acknowledgment of a bilateral agreement raised questions about whether the country is being used as a temporary destination to circumvent U.S. court protections.
- The bilateral agreement remains largely opaque, with no published financial or diplomatic terms, deepening unease among families and advocates.
Reported human impact and detention conditions
A lawsuit filed on September 12, 2025 by Asian Americans Advancing Justice on behalf of five Nigerians and Gambians alleges multiple due process failures and details troubling conditions:
- Four deportees were detained in Dema Camp after arrival in Ghana; conditions there were reportedly substandard.
- Several deportees say they were restrained in straitjackets for the 16-hour flight and were not told their destination.
- One reported case: Ghana allegedly sent a former detainee onward to The Gambia, despite a U.S. immigration court ruling that, as a gay man, he could not be sent there under the CAT.
These accounts have fueled fears of torture and mistreatment, and lawyers argue clients were denied a meaningful chance to make CAT claims before removal.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has offered assistance and is monitoring conditions, but rights groups say support programs cannot cure the underlying problem of removals to places where people fear abuse. Ghana’s government has not publicly addressed these specific concerns.
Legal avenues, practical advice, and current limits
The legal landscape is volatile and uneven:
- Some district courts have raised concerns about missing notice and screening.
- Higher courts, including the Supreme Court, have largely deferred to executive authority so far, narrowing immediate judicial remedies.
- Once a deportee is outside U.S. jurisdiction, judges say their ability to intervene is limited—meaning remedies can disappear quickly after a plane departs.
Immediate practical advice from attorneys for people at risk:
- Put any CAT claim in writing.
- Keep copies of all filings, notices, and court orders.
- Tell counsel about any past torture, sexual violence, or threats tied to identity or politics.
- Flag court orders and pending motions to ICE and other relevant authorities.
Even with these steps, recent flights indicate such safeguards may not always prevent removal. The tension between paper rights and real-world outcomes is central to current due process debates.
Broader effects and stakeholders
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue:
- Third-country transfers are lawful and necessary given limited detention space and rising removal backlogs.
- Agreements with African partners help ensure cooperation and quicker returns.
Critics respond that:
- Countries like Ghana risk becoming “dumping grounds for unresolved issues,” with migrants caught in limbo and exposed to harm.
- The June 4 travel ban has delayed visits, stalled business travel, and split families.
- Employers relying on cross-border talent face hiring chills; community groups report growing fear among mixed-status families.
- Ghana’s services face pressure as more arrivals bring complex needs and unclear legal status.
Resources and next steps
- For enforcement basics and family contact methods, see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Removal Operations: https://www.ice.gov/removal-operations (note: this page does not address details of the Ghana agreement).
- For those already in Ghana, local authorities and IOM offices may be first points of contact for welfare checks and travel documents.
Ongoing litigation filed in September may compel limited disclosures about the Ghana agreement and push for stronger pre-removal screening. However, the current Supreme Court posture favors executive control, and absent a policy change from the White House or new congressional limits, the pipeline to Ghana is likely to continue operating.
Key takeaway: The central question remains whether people are given a real chance to be heard before removal and whether protection claims are considered in a timely, fair way. Reported practices—straitjackets, lack of notice, blocked counsel access—cast doubt on the existence of robust due process protections and will influence how courts interpret U.S. obligations under the CAT going forward.
In the meantime, families worry, lawyers rush, and planes fly. For those affected, the stakes are immediate: life, safety, and the opportunity to speak before being sent to places they fear.
This Article in a Nutshell
In September 2025, the U.S. deported 14 migrants to Ghana, igniting legal challenges and human-rights alarms. Advocates say at least five deportees were Nigerian or Gambian with active U.S. court orders blocking removal to their home countries. Ghana’s public confirmation of a bilateral acceptance agreement on September 10 intensified filings alleging due process failures, including lack of notice, denied CAT screenings, restraint during long flights, and detention in substandard facilities like Dema Camp. The Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction requiring written notice and CAT screening, allowing removals to continue. Critics warn the policy risks refoulement and uses diplomatic leverage tied to a June 4 travel ban. Remedies are limited once migrants leave U.S. jurisdiction, so lawyers advise documenting CAT claims, keeping copies of filings, and flagging orders to ICE. Ongoing litigation may force disclosures on the Ghana agreement, but absent policy change, third-country transfers likely will continue.
